ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The short issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in ordering for adjustment of tax arrears of Rs. 2,37,862.21 in terms of Order-in-Original No. 47/2000 dated 26.3.2000. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has, in terms of Hon’ble High Court of Madras order dated 7.3.2001, directed for refund of an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 18%. However, he has withheld an amount of Rs. 2,37,862.21 on the ground that the said amount is liable to be adjusted towards the demand in OIO No. 47/2000 dated 26.3.2000. He has also noted that appellants have filed an appeal in A/185/2000 and the same is pending before him.
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel Miss Thenmozhi and Ld. DR Shri C. Mani for Revenue.
3. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I notice that Commissioner (Appeals) has not justified in directing an adjustment of the amount towards tax arrears in terms of OIO No. 47/2000 dated 26.3.2000. He has noted that an appeal has been filed in the office in A/185/2000 against the said order is pending. Ld. Counsel has now produced OIA No. 174/2001 dated 15.1.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said OIA No. 185/01 arising from OIO No. 47/2000 dated 26.3.2000 passed by the by. Commissioner. In terms of this OIA No. 174/2001 dated 15.1.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the OIO and allowed party’s appeal. In that view of the matter adjustment of Rs. 2,37,862.21 in terms of OIO No. 47/2000 dated 26.3.2000 is not legal and proper and requires lo be sol aside. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed appellant’s appeal No. 185/2000 pending before him, the question of adjustment of tax arrears does not arise the amounts is liable to be refunded to the appellants in terms of the High Court’s order already on record.
4. Likewise, the Commissioner has also withheld the payment of Rs. 1,26,476/- which has been sanctioned on the ground that same is required to be adjusted towards the above noted OIO no. 47/2000 dated 26.5.2000. In view of the final order No. 174/2001 dated 15.1.2001, this amount is required to be refunded to the appellants. Thus, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)